When it first became clear that the CIAs Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obamas political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.

Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.

Under these circumstances, it would not do to attribute the Benghazi killings to the terrorism about which top State Department officials had been warned. Much better to lump what happened in Libya together with the protests that occurred in Egypt, and thereby characterize it as a demonstration that went too far, rather than premeditated terrorism.

Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? Its difficult to see how she could not have been.

As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIAs talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster  when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security  and at the back end  when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up. Her culpability during the attacks is doubtful in my opinion, but I would still like to know what she was doing during those tragic hours.

In a serious society, Benghazi, standing alone, would spell the end of Hillary Clintons public career. But there is much more.

The signature initiative of her time as Secretary of State  the reset with Russia  was a fiasco or a farce, depending on how seriously one took it to begin with. I would have had trouble taking seriously an initiative launched with the aid of a fake reset button, even if Clinton had used the correct Russian word for reset.

We should also remember that Clinton managed to lose the presidential nomination in 2008 despite having a huge lead and major advantages over her relatively unknown rival. She lost in part because she and her staff couldnt figure out the importance of winning caucuses in a host of off-the-beaten-path states.

Finally, there should be no statute of limitations on Hillarycare. On big matters, failure is the norm for Hillary Clinton.

Despite all of this, Clinton finds herself the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, if she seeks it. And I gather that she is favored to win the general election, as well.

Will Benghazi derail her? I wouldnt bet on it. First, its far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.

Second, and relatedly, before Benghazi can hurt Clinton, someone needs the courage to raise the issue. Would Clintons serious Democratic rivals (if any) have that courage? Or would they fear a backlash from an essentially pacifist base that sees this as a Republican issue, and therefore irrelevant, and that is that may be hell bent on nominating a female.

Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?

Perhaps the specter of Benghazi, or simple embarrassment over it, will dissuade Clinton from even entering the race. But I wouldnt bet on that either.

Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?

Almost certainly the answer is yes. It would be tricky I admit, mainly because the media will come to her defense, but IF the GOP candidate does it well enough and DOESN'T sound apologetic about it, it could work. One danger would be that the GOP candidate starts to bring it up, then mostly drops it after the initial massive retaliation from the media/Democrats. They would have to be ready for that and keep on slugging. There's also the likelihood that they would fail to explain it well enough as GOP candidates almost always fail to do

They should portray her as dishonest and use that exchange where she says "What difference does it make?" in commercials. Just run that over and over with Hicks saying "We knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go" etc.

They should portray her as dishonest and use that exchange where she says "What difference does it make?" in commercials. Just run that over and over with Hicks saying "We knew it was a terrorist attack from the get go" etc.

In the commercial, following up the "What difference does it make?" with an answer (punctuated by the images of the four dead): "The lives of four patriotic Americans, that's the difference!"

3
posted on 05/07/2013 6:58:28 AM PDT
by ScottinVA
( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)

Culpable? Thats an awful big word for the low-information voter to process. All they know is that Robert Culp co-starred with Bill Cosby and that hes dead.

Or they're going to think they're hearing, "Gulpable"... at which point they'll discover they're thirsty and jonesing for a "Big Gulp" and you'll have lost them. We have to be careful not to fill their little cranial thimbles with firehoses of information. They'll just shut down.

5
posted on 05/07/2013 7:00:15 AM PDT
by ScottinVA
( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)

Get some movies/video of those four Americans...maybe playing with their dog, hugging their child....something like that. Make a montage of all four of the dead guys, cute little scenes that show them doing what Americans do when not being left to die by their own countrymen.

Now, after a nice montage of video clips guaranteed to bring tears, get that awful shrill woman’s yelling...”WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?”

Make sure the video montage has the dead men’s names, the names of their dog....make it maudlin....put up short verbiage clips like what they wanted to do someday, dreams they...pay some Hollywood dude to make a great little clip. For enough money anything can be done.

All the while have Hillary keep asking over and over...

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!

Americans will be screaming for that awful Hillary woman who is the WORST Secretary of State EVER and her Obama enablers.

If I were “Congress” I would hold the hearings; make sure that this failure is the legacy of the Clinton SoS by using the words failure and dereliction of duty over and over again. Show how she actively worked to get those men killed. See how far you can take it.

Maybe try for a special prosecutor.

If that wasn’t enough then I would give the Congressional Medal of Honor that is given to citizens by Congress to the 4 people who were murdered. Big ceremony, maybe a big parade. Televised. Make sure that it is known that Hillary was specifically not invited by the families.

Then I would bring back the families in 2016 if Hillary starts to run for Presidential office to remind people of what a callous failure she was. Have them hold up the medals and ask America not to let their sons be betrayed again.

It isn’t that she just a flaming liberal - it’s that she’s an heartless, corrupt idiot who is totally unqualified for office. She must be taken out of politics.

You could be on to something. After kissing hillary’s ass , covering and lying when necessary for her over the years, for the media to suddenly turn on her, there has to be a reason. Or they could be setting a trap for the Conservatives and Republicans to fall into. As the residents of Troy learned long, beware of your enemy bearing a gift.

Actually, I know he'd put it that way ~ a similar enemy ~ only interested in itself, Carthage, like the GOP-e, would rather have it's own candidates lose than allow a traditionalist, social conservative, fiscal conservative, defense conservative or right to lifer run the race!

Carthage was always more difficult with its allies and coalition partners than it was with Rome!

First, its far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.

In order for the public to be concerned, they have to be told by the MSM to be concerned. And, the MSM will not do that. Can you I imagine if Nixon was a Democrat? Watergate would only be some relatively unknown Washington DC hotel.

My guess is that they’re going to blame this all on “low level operatives” acting on their own, and fully throw Susan Rice under the bus (and back over her several times) in saying that she acted alone in editing the talking points and lying. They’ll just say she was overzealous or depressed and acting out or some damn thing, and welll, gee, that was wrong, but we’ve dealt with it and the poor woman has paid the price, so now can’t we all just MOVE ON!?

Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest zeroes to ever hit this country.

When she was first lady I remember a “lecture” she gave the then newly elected senators. She told them that if they didn’t follow the Clinton talking points that they would be “demonized”...yes that’s the word she used. Made a lot of those senators mad, God love them politicos all.

Now we can DEMONIZE her and we don’t even have to lie to do it. She is just an awful person and will burn in hell. I will smile and dance as she goes down.

I can't fathom why, but the GOPe won't use this to advantage. If this was not the truth, then starting tomorrow we should see Congresscritters talking about this in every interview using the terms ‘political cover up” and “blatant lie to the public”, “treasonous dereliction of duty”, “special prosecutor” and “Impeachable offense”. But I have doubts we will hear anything stronger than “needs more investigation”.

26
posted on 05/07/2013 7:18:50 AM PDT
by swamprebel
(a Constitution once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.)

Its in Joe Bidens interest to see that the scandal is laid at Clintons feet. He is running for president already.

Bingo. But as Rush so eloquently stated yesterday, the Left's main goal right now is to protect and shield Hillary, since they want her as the 2016 nominee. Here's what we know:

Biden wants it blamed on Hillary.

Hillary wants it blamed either high or low, on Obama or some underlings.

Obama wants it kept as from him as possible.

Many years ago, regarding the Whitewater scandal, Rush said, "If you want to know what happened at Whitewater, find out what happened to Vince Foster." That line of reasoning holds true for Benghazi: if you want to figure out the Benghazi coverup, find out what Obama and Hillary were doing and/or planning during those missing hours.

Yes, she’s culpable...of covering up for Obama. No SOS, particularly a weak and side-lined one like Hillary, goes out and does things like that on his or her own. This policy came from the WH.

She carried it out willingly, of course, because she also hates the US. But it didn’t originate with her, and stopping the investigation with her is just what Barry-Throw-Them-Under-The-Bus wants. It’s worked for him in every preceding instance, and it will probably work for him this time, too.

A SP could focus on all White House and SOS emails, and communications, meetings, staff interviews, and of course the testimony of the 31 survivors. A congressional committee could of course do all of the afore mentioned, but often lack focus, as new issues spin up, and a SP could be seen as impartial and not a political witch hunt, which is how the left will spin this.

37
posted on 05/07/2013 7:49:00 AM PDT
by swamprebel
(a Constitution once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.)

The question will not end with, "Who issued that clearance?" but rather, "Who are the highest level people in the State Department chain of command that requested and/or approved that clearance, and on the basis of what application data and vetting process(which we demand to see)?"

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.